I consider the 'vi' as a great text editor to terminals. What do you suggest to use Anselm? I manage multiple servers, and it has been my faithful companion, fast, easy, simple, once you learn, you'll never forget it, anyway, I like it, but if you have a better suggestion, I'm curious to know.
at; Eder *Eder Paulo Pereira* 2015-04-13 14:30 GMT-03:00 <lpi-discuss-requ...@lpi.org>: > Send lpi-discuss mailing list submissions to > lpi-discuss@lpi.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > lpi-discuss-requ...@lpi.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > lpi-discuss-ow...@lpi.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of lpi-discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: is it time to remove "vi" from the exam? (Anselm Lingnau) > 2. Re: is it time to remove "vi" from the exam? (Alan McKinnon) > 3. Re: lpi-discuss Digest, Vol 94, Issue 10 (Alan McKinnon) > 4. Re: is it time to remove "vi" from the exam? > (Andrzej Szczygielski) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:51:02 +0200 > From: Anselm Lingnau <anselm.ling...@linupfront.de> > Subject: Re: [lpi-discuss] is it time to remove "vi" from the exam? > To: "General discussion relating to LPI." <lpi-discuss@lpi.org> > Message-ID: <874mok9cng....@ceol.strathspey.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Andrzej Szczygielski <andrze...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Yes it is 21 century but does it mean reliable although old tools (so to > > speak) are worthless. If age is your main issue so propably it is worth > > realising how many 'aged' technologies are still in use today and they > are > > based on principles as old as humanity > > If your main argument in favour of having vi on the LPIC-1 exam is that > we've been using the wheel for 3000 years and it still seems to look > like a good idea, then I would suggest that is not a particularly great > argument. Where did I say vi was ?worthless?? I said exactly the > opposite. There can be no doubt that it *does* work as a text > editor. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is a text editor that > everyone should use for everything, all the time. > > Please consider the following: Many people who go for LPI certification > have worked with a text editor (on Linux or a different platform) and > have certain expectations about how such a program should work. In the > 21st century, this normally involves using the arrow keys to navigate to > the appropriate place in a file and start typing; in my experience > people tend to find it something of a hassle to have to remember to use > ?i? and ?Esc? just to insert a couple of characters. Holding vi (of all > editors) up as the gold standard of text editing on Linux also adds to > the system's reputation as old-fashioned, obtuse and inconvenient. It is > possible to justify why vi works the way it does by asking people to > imagine themselves in the 1970s when cell-addressable video terminals > had just become popular but the idea of arrow keys had not yet caught > on, but that suggests that there has been no innovation in Linux text > editors in the intervening 40 years, which as we know is rubbish. > > There are various perfectly adequate and widely deployed text editors > available for Linux which *do* work very much like text editors on other > platforms that these people are likely to know already. So do we really > want to *force* these people to spend considerable time learning all > sorts of detail about a text editor whose philosophy of operation dates > back to a time when terminals didn't have arrow keys, and which does not > work at all like people would expect from past experience? Learning > Linux already involves enough of a cognitive load that we don't really > need to torture people with something like vi unless we absolutely have > to. > > Frankly I don't know what people see in vi, and why it must be defended > at all costs. I say eliminate vi from the exam altogether, or downgrade > it as far as possible (see my previous message). If people *want* to use > or teach vi, by all means let them ? but don't force it on people who'd > prefer to do more productive things with their time. > > Anselm > -- > Anselm Lingnau ... Linup Front GmbH ... Linux-, Open-Source- & > Netz-Schulungen > anselm.ling...@linupfront.de, +49(0)6151-9067-103, Fax -299, > www.linupfront.de > Linup Front GmbH, Postfach 100121, 64201 Darmstadt, Germany > Sitz: Weiterstadt (AG Darmstadt, HRB7705), Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Oliver Michel > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 20:40:37 +0200 > From: Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [lpi-discuss] is it time to remove "vi" from the exam? > To: lpi-discuss@lpi.org > Message-ID: <552c0da5.6000...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > On 13/04/2015 18:51, Anselm Lingnau wrote: > > There are various perfectly adequate and widely deployed text editors > > available for Linux which *do* work very much like text editors on other > > platforms that these people are likely to know already. So do we really > > want to *force* these people to spend considerable time learning all > > sorts of detail about a text editor whose philosophy of operation dates > > back to a time when terminals didn't have arrow keys, and which does not > > work at all like people would expect from past experience? Learning > > Linux already involves enough of a cognitive load that we don't really > > need to torture people with something like vi unless we absolutely have > > to. > > > > Frankly I don't know what people see in vi, and why it must be defended > > at all costs. I say eliminate vi from the exam altogether, or downgrade > > it as far as possible (see my previous message). If people *want* to use > > or teach vi, by all means let them ? but don't force it on people who'd > > prefer to do more productive things with their time. > > > Hear, hear! > > This is the gist of my argument when I replied way back in the beginning > of the thread. > > We should all keep in mind the usefulness of software is not the same > thing as examinability. Those are two very different things. > > vi is useful, I cannot imagine doing my work without it. But knowledge > of vi is NOT one of my criteria of determining if a junior admin is > knowledgeable enough to work on my systems. I also don't expect them to > know anything at all about fundamentals of X (eg X-Resources), and yet > X11 is installed everywhere on all workstations. > > Consider this argument: > > LPIC-1 is a basic level sysadmin exam. I do not consider the minimally > qualified candidate to be someone that can build a new system from > scratch in the style of LFS or a Gentoo stage 1, nor are they someone > who can fix a hopelessly broken system using only what is on / without > /usr mounted, or an ultra minimal rescue image built around busybox. > That is LPIC-2 or higher territory. > > I do consider an LPIC-1 graduate to be able to install a new > RHEL/Suse/Debian/*buntu system from a downloadable image and set it up > according to some predetermined spec. All of these systems have wizard > installers, and all of them allow the user to select various editors > from a list. If not, "yum install pico" is a mere 17 keystrokes away. Or > put it in a preseed, which would have been created on a system that > already has the user's preferred editor installed. > > I cannot think of any realistic cases where a typical sysadmin of LPIC-1 > calibre would reasonably find themselves in a situation in this day and > age where vi is the only tool around and alternatives are impossible. > > Remember, our exams test for the usual case and for things that can > reasonably be expected to show up often. vi is an edge case. > > -- > Alan McKinnon > alan.mckin...@gmail.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 20:42:57 +0200 > From: Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [lpi-discuss] lpi-discuss Digest, Vol 94, Issue 10 > To: lpi-discuss@lpi.org > Message-ID: <552c0e31.3010...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > On 13/04/2015 18:27, Elnajim wrote: > > Is it not good to remove vi on the test, because vi is basically > > principal command > > I disagree. I have never yet come across a case where vi was absolutely > 100% *required*. When juniors think they have found such a case, I > usually point them to defining EDITOR in the environment. > > Something that just happens to be prevalent is not the same thing as > something that is required. > > > [snip] > > -- > Alan McKinnon > alan.mckin...@gmail.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:47:31 +0100 > From: Andrzej Szczygielski <andrze...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [lpi-discuss] is it time to remove "vi" from the exam? > To: "General discussion relating to LPI." <lpi-discuss@lpi.org> > Message-ID: > < > cagvjcapk_tsyrev+2skbzd3om7umehv9hpcpua9qvyyivgy...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > People aspiring to be IT professional should be ready to be inconvenienced > by complexity of technology he/she is going to deal with > On 13 Apr 2015 18:11, "Anselm Lingnau" <anselm.ling...@linupfront.de> > wrote: > > > Andrzej Szczygielski <andrze...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Yes it is 21 century but does it mean reliable although old tools (so > to > > > speak) are worthless. If age is your main issue so propably it is worth > > > realising how many 'aged' technologies are still in use today and they > > are > > > based on principles as old as humanity > > > > If your main argument in favour of having vi on the LPIC-1 exam is that > > we've been using the wheel for 3000 years and it still seems to look > > like a good idea, then I would suggest that is not a particularly great > > argument. Where did I say vi was ?worthless?? I said exactly the > > opposite. There can be no doubt that it *does* work as a text > > editor. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is a text editor that > > everyone should use for everything, all the time. > > > > Please consider the following: Many people who go for LPI certification > > have worked with a text editor (on Linux or a different platform) and > > have certain expectations about how such a program should work. In the > > 21st century, this normally involves using the arrow keys to navigate to > > the appropriate place in a file and start typing; in my experience > > people tend to find it something of a hassle to have to remember to use > > ?i? and ?Esc? just to insert a couple of characters. Holding vi (of all > > editors) up as the gold standard of text editing on Linux also adds to > > the system's reputation as old-fashioned, obtuse and inconvenient. It is > > possible to justify why vi works the way it does by asking people to > > imagine themselves in the 1970s when cell-addressable video terminals > > had just become popular but the idea of arrow keys had not yet caught > > on, but that suggests that there has been no innovation in Linux text > > editors in the intervening 40 years, which as we know is rubbish. > > > > There are various perfectly adequate and widely deployed text editors > > available for Linux which *do* work very much like text editors on other > > platforms that these people are likely to know already. So do we really > > want to *force* these people to spend considerable time learning all > > sorts of detail about a text editor whose philosophy of operation dates > > back to a time when terminals didn't have arrow keys, and which does not > > work at all like people would expect from past experience? Learning > > Linux already involves enough of a cognitive load that we don't really > > need to torture people with something like vi unless we absolutely have > > to. > > > > Frankly I don't know what people see in vi, and why it must be defended > > at all costs. I say eliminate vi from the exam altogether, or downgrade > > it as far as possible (see my previous message). If people *want* to use > > or teach vi, by all means let them ? but don't force it on people who'd > > prefer to do more productive things with their time. > > > > Anselm > > -- > > Anselm Lingnau ... Linup Front GmbH ... Linux-, Open-Source- & > > Netz-Schulungen > > anselm.ling...@linupfront.de, +49(0)6151-9067-103, Fax -299, > > www.linupfront.de > > Linup Front GmbH, Postfach 100121, 64201 Darmstadt, Germany > > Sitz: Weiterstadt (AG Darmstadt, HRB7705), Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Oliver Michel > > _______________________________________________ > > lpi-discuss mailing list > > lpi-discuss@lpi.org > > http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://list.lpi.org/pipermail/lpi-discuss/attachments/20150413/96c9e138/attachment.htm > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > lpi-discuss mailing list > lpi-discuss@lpi.org > http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss > > End of lpi-discuss Digest, Vol 94, Issue 12 > ******************************************* >
_______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list lpi-discuss@lpi.org http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
